HUMBERTO DELGADO, JR., Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. SC12-579
Supreme Court of Florida
[April 23, 2015]
Humberto Delgado, Jr., appeals his sentence of death for the murder of Corporal Michael Roberts of the Tampa Police Department. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the sentence of death and remand to the trial court for imposition of a life sentence.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November 2011, Humberto Delgado, Jr. (Delgado) was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm, depriving a law enforcement officer of his means of communication, and first-degree felony murder in the shooting death of Corporal Roberts in Hillsborough County. Delgado was also found guilty of aggravated
On August 19, 2009, Delgado took a bus to a jewelry store to retrieve some money he had previously used to place a watch on layaway. Upon arriving at the store, he was told that there was not yet enough money in the cash drawer for him to receive his refund and he would have to wait for someone with cash to make a transaction at the store. Delgado waited about forty-five minutes, but when the store still could not process his refund, he left, taking a bus back to the storage facility where he had slept the night before. He transferred some of his belongings, including his laptop computer and four firearms, from the storage unit into a backpack. Then, despite suffering from chronic knee pain, Delgado decided to walk, with his cane, from Oldsmar, Florida, to a veterans’ hospital in Tampa to seek assistance and shelter.
Approximately eight hours later, Corporal Roberts observed Delgado pushing a shopping cart along the roadway in an area known for shopping cart theft and other crimes committed by homeless individuals. It was a hot, rainy day, and Delgado had walked approximately fifteen miles at that point. At 9:58 p.m., Roberts radioed a Tampa police dispatcher that he was about to conduct a routine field investigation. Roberts then pulled his police cruiser onto the side of the road
At some point during the scuffle, the police dispatcher received a brief transmission from Roberts’ handheld radio, indicating to her that Roberts might be in distress. She immediately requested that another officer respond to Roberts’ location. Within minutes, Sergeant Mumford arrived on the scene. He saw Delgado holding a backpack, jogging slowly toward Roberts’ police car. When Mumford scanned Delgado‘s path of travel, he noticed Roberts’ motionless body
At that point, Mumford realized Delgado was a possible suspect and begаn running after Delgado, telling him to stop. While running, Delgado began digging in his backpack, until it fell to the ground. He reached inside of it and retrieved a firearm. Mumford then witnessed Delgado position himself in a “two-point stand,” which officers are trained to do, with the gun pointed directly at Mumford. Mumford sought cover behind a building, but Delgado did not shoot. When Mumford peered back around the corner of the building, he saw Delgado running towards a park with the weapon still in his hand. Realizing that he was no longer in immediate danger, Mumford went back to the original crime scene to cover Roberts and wait for back-up.
At trial, an eighteen-year-old boy walking in the park that night with his brother testified that a man he later identified as Delgado was running through the park, crying, holding a gun down by his side. Delgado asked the boys for help and stated that the poliсe were trying to kill him, but the two boys ran away. Several minutes later, a K-9 unit apprehended Delgado, who was hiding in a wood pile in the yard of a nearby home.
After Delgado was taken into custody, officers retrieved—either from his person, his effects, or the vicinity—four firearms: one Kel-Tec high-capacity
A message of promise to this evil world, filled with liars and cheaters and monkey cheetahs. I am who I am. A living man who was betrayed and who knows that he is always being betrayed for bullshit. But since I do not like bullshit the Living GOD and eye have designed a punishment that is so great 4 U MONKEY CHEETAHS. That you will understand who is, who is, A LIVING GOD. DON‘T worry for me anymore because of your zips and socials your SOULS, soulS, souls, souls are lost to be MINED. So as (I am) priceless and free so will all mines be. All who stand against this Ay Ay will understand what it means to dye.
In loving memory I meditate you. As Pacheco as can be, as Humberto Delgado Jr. and all his children can be, as Tito can be, as those I love can be, as Abel can be, as the third Adam can be, as Wahman can be, as this whole world can be. Love you GOD for ever and ever, Amen.
777
8
A walking cane was found leaning against the shopping cart that Delgado had been using. At the scene where Delgado was apprehended, officers found Roberts’ handheld police radio.
A. Background
In 2003, Delgado‘s wife had him involuntarily committed for mental health treatment for about a week. He began taking medication that seemed to help him, but soon stopped taking it because it made him feel “like a zombie.” The paranoid delusions began again, causing Delgado to have trouble sleeping and eating, and he would sometimes just pace back and forth. Delgado and his wife soon divorced.
In addition, Delgado began wearing gloves, walking with a canе, and claiming to be a character from the Bible. He would also set up mirrors in his home in order to catch demons at night and write “777” on the doors of his apartment or on the back of pictures. Delgado stopped going to his father‘s house because he was afraid that his father and stepmother were trying to poison him. The two eventually got an apartment for Delgado close to where they lived to make sure that he was eating, bathing, and caring for himself, but he only lived there for about a year before joining the military.
Delgado‘s delusions continued during his military service. He asserted that 50 Cent and his entourage, as well as some of Delgado‘s former coworkers, were trying to kill him. One time Delgado stayed awake for four days because of this concern, eventually choosing to stаy with a friend in the barracks. One night at
Upon admission, Delgado tested negative for any type of drug or alcohol intoxication.1 He was diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder with “psychotic features.” At trial, Dr. William Leusink, a psychiatrist at the Medical Center, testified that at the time of hospitalization, Delgado was suffering from a manic episode, characterized by a severely elevated mood, sleep deprivation, hyper-religious thinking, pressured speech (a loud, rapid speech pattern), and delusions. Dr. Leusink explained that an individual suffering from a delusion cannot be talked out of a belief, regardless of how much information is given to him or her, because that delusion is reality, whereas a person suffering from an irrational belief can be
In June of 2009, Delgado moved in with his uncle in Oldsmar, Florida, until approximately two weeks before the shooting, but his abnormal behaviors continued. Day and night, he would pace throughout the house, in and out of different rooms, talking to himself. He was not sleeping and complained of constant headaches. He also maintained that people were trying to kill him and that he was not getting enough helр from the Department of Veterans Affairs (the V.A.). Delgado‘s odd behavior frightened his uncle‘s three daughters, and Delgado was asked to leave at the end of the month. Delgado instead left immediately.
After leaving his uncle‘s home, Delgado stayed with friends during the two weeks leading up to the murder. During that time, Delgado complained that someone was out to get him and on one occasion, barricaded the door with his belongings to prevent anyone from entering while Delgado was home alone.
After lodging with friends, Delgado began to seek shelter through the V.A. He visited the Bay Pines V.A. Medical Center twice. About seven days before the shooting, he was examined by a psychiatrist there who described him as goal-directed and clear in his communications, not exhibiting any type of manic or psychotic behaviors. Two days later, during an interview to assist Delgado in finding housing, a social worker did not observe any symptoms of psychosis from Delgado and administered a questionnaire to him on which he did not indicate any psychosis or depression. However, after the interview, the social worker offered Delgado the option of being placed into a facility for the severely and persistently mentally ill. Delgado eventually found housing at the V.A. However, after staying there for a couple of days, Delgado chose not to stay because he thought the people there were “crazy.”
A few days before the shooting, Delgado called his ex-girlfriend in a panic, telling her that someone was calling his phone and hanging up and that he was convinced that someone was trying to kill him. He asked to stay with her in North
On the day of the shooting, Delgado called his uncle to ask him about a V.A. location in Tampa. That day, it had been raining very hard, and Delgado wanted shelter. Delgado‘s uncle offered to give him a ride to the location, but Delgado refused. That was the last time Delgado‘s uncle heard from Delgado before the shooting. Later that evening, Delgado called again, this time asking for his uncle‘s forgiveness and telling his uncle that he had shot a police officer, who was possibly dead, and that Delgado was going to kill himself. Delgado‘s uncle told him not to do that and to think about his family. The call ended immediately thereafter.
B. Expert Testimony
A total of six expert witnesses testified at various stages of trial. Dr. Michael Maher, a board certified psychiatrist with a specialty in forensic psychiatry, testified for the defense at the guilt phase and Spencer2 hearing. He interviewed Delgado a total of eight times; the first time occurred two weeks after the murder. Dr. Wade Myers testified for the State at the guilt phase and Spencer hearing. He is a professor of psychiatry and board certified psychiatrist in general
Two additional experts were introduced at the penalty phase hearing. Dr. Harry Krop, a clinical psychologist with a specialty in neuropsychology, testified for the defense at both the penalty phase and Spencer hearing. He interviewed Delgado three times, beginning a little over a year after the murder. Lastly, Dr. Mark Ruiz also testified for the defense at the penalty phase and Spencer hearing. Dr. Ruiz is a clinical psychologist specializing in general clinical psychology, general practice, and forensic evaluations. He evaluated Delgado two days after the shooting, as well as on at least four additional occasions.
All six experts diagnosed Delgadо with some form of bipolar disorder. Five specified a diagnosis of bipolar disorder with psychotic features. Dr. Taylor described this disorder as alternating between manic and depressive episodes, with
Dr. Ruiz estimated a Global Assessment of Functioning score for Delgado of around the mid-forties, indicating that Delgado had very severe symptoms that were affecting his social and occupational functioning. Ruiz explained that a score of one hundred indicates superior functioning and zero equals the worst functioning possible. Delgado‘s score indicated very severe mental illness sufficient for admission into the psychiatric unit of a hospital. Further, Dr. Ruiz administered a malingering test and found no evidence that Delgado was over-representing, exaggerating, or feigning his symptoms. Dr. Krop‘s testing also revealed no evidence of malingering. Dr. Stein testified at the Spencer hearing that
Five of six experts testified that both statutory mental health mitigators applied in this case. As to whether Delgado was operating under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance, the experts cited various psychosocial stressors Delgado was experiencing at the time: an inability to find permanent residence, at times to the point of homelessness; his perception of inadequate assistance from the V.A. system; sleep deprivation; distress about his finances; poor eating habits; watching various relationships and friendships fall apart because of his mental illness; chronic pain and physical problems, likely exacerbated by his fifteen-mile walk; feelings of isolation and rejection from his family and ex-girlfriend; frustration at his inability to work; and feeling he had no option but to walk to Tampa to seek shelter and medical care. Several experts opined that Delgado‘s mental illness and paranoid delusions combined with these
Conversely, Dr. Myers testified that although Delgado exhibited some signs of agitation and suspicion that day, he did not have the associated symptoms of mania or severe depression needed to meet the criteria for a bipolar disorder episode. Dr. Myers did acknowledge, however, that Delgado was experiencing symptoms of hypomania at the time of the crime, which Dr. Myers described as including decreased sleep, increased energy, increased goal-oriented activity, and agitation or trouble sitting still. While recognizing Delgado‘s extensive mental health history, Dr. Myers found that Delgado did not have symptoms of such extreme disturbance in the time period surrounding the crime, but instead exhibited only some mild symptoms of mental illness.
Five experts also found that Delgado‘s capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. Several experts pointed to the рsychosocial stressors that exacerbated Delgado‘s mental illness, worsening his mental state to the point of hypomania, which is characterized by irritable mood, impulsivity, sleeping poorly, and making
Two experts also identified Delgado‘s delusional history as part of the problem, causing him to have a general mistrust or suspicion of police officers. Dr. Krop testified that Delgado‘s perception that he had done nothing wrong led him to suspect corruption from Corporal Roberts, which further reinforced his delusional beliefs. Being tasered simply confirmed Delgado‘s fear that he would either be harmed by this officer or placed in jail where some other attack would occur. Dr. Krop testified that Delgado‘s anxiety level was so high that his ability to appreciate the criminality of his action was substantially impaired.
On the other hand, Dr. Myеrs did not find substantial impairment. He determined that the murder was not a product of impulsivity because Delgado had
Dr. Maher testified that both mitigators applied. He explained that the additional stresses Delgado was experiencing made him more vulnerable to responding to the interaction with Corporal Roberts by reverting to his paranoid, delusional belief system that police officers are tied in with evil forces and want to kill him. In Dr. Maher‘s opinion, Delgado‘s state of mind at the time of the offense was that someone was going to kill him and that he had better fight back and run.
C. Procedural History
At the penalty phase, the State presented victim impact statements from Jane Castor, the Chief of Police for the City of Tampa; Charlene Penrose, the victim‘s sister-in-law; and Cynthia Roberts, the victim‘s wife. The defense presented five lay witnesses, including Dr. Jose Hernandez, who was Delgado‘s treating psychiatrist at the Hillsborough County Jail when Delgado was first arrested. After the initial evaluation of Delgado, Dr. Hernandez found that Delgado was very
At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury recommended death by a vote of eight to four. The trial court conducted the Spencer hearing on January 13, 2012. In its sentencing order, the court found two aggravating circumstances: prior violent felony3 based on the contemporaneous conviction for aggravated assault (moderate weight) and that the victim was a law enforcement officer4 (great
Delgado raises three issues on appeal.7 However, his primary argument is that his death sentence is disproportionate. Our conclusion on proportionality renders his remaining claims moot, but for the sake of clarity, we also address his claim that the trial judge used an incorrect standard relating to a jury override. As part of our mandatory duty to examine the sufficiency of the evidence, we find—and the parties do not dispute—that there was sufficient evidence here to uphold Delgado‘s first-degree murder conviction.
Delgado argues that in deciding whether to override the jury‘s death recommendation, the trial judge erroneously used the Tedder8 standard, which only applies when determining whether to override a jury‘s life recommendation and instead impose a death sentеnce. Because this is a pure question of law, our review is de novo. State v. Sturdivant, 94 So. 3d 434, 439 (Fla. 2012); Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864, 868 (Fla. 2010) (“Pure questions of law are subject to de novo review.“).
This Court has described the Tedder standard as follows:
A jury recommendation under our trifurcated death penalty statute should be given great weight. In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.
Tedder, 322 So. 2d at 910. Although Tedder involved a life recommendation by the jury, a death recommendation should also be given great weight. See Phillips v. State, 39 So. 3d 296, 305 (Fla. 2010). However, “regardless of the jury‘s recommendation, the trial judge must conduct an independent analysis of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Id. at 305; Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191, 1197 (Fla. 1980) (explaining that giving great weight to a jury‘s death recommendation does not require the trial court to impose the death penalty
The trial judge here conducted a thorough weighing of the aggravators and mitigators. In fact, the judge spent a full eighteen pages detailing his findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances before briefly citing the “reasonable person” standard in a subsequent section of the order. The judge then concluded as follows:
In weighing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, the Court recognizes that the process is not simply a quantitative analysis, but a qualitative one. It is the Court‘s duty to consider that nature and quality of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which have been established.
After carefully considering and weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case, the Court finds that the aggravating circumstances presented for the murder of Corporal Roberts outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
Thus, the trial judge clearly engaged in a detailed analysis of the aggravators and mitigators and properly weighed those factors to determine Delgado‘s sentence. Accordingly, citation to Tedder does not render the trial court‘s analysis invalid.
B. Proportionality
Our proportionality review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Williams v. State, 37 So. 3d 187, 205 (Fla. 2010). Rather, it is a qualitative review of such factors, considering the totality of the circumstances as compared to other capital cases. Id. Further, we
In comparing this case to others, we find that it is not one of the most aggravated or least mitigated. In fact, we have found death to be disproportionate in cases that were less mitigated and at least equally as aggravated as, if not more aggravated than, the instant case. See Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923, 938-39 (Fla. 2011) (finding death disproportionate where trial court found two aggravators—prior violent felony for contemporaneous conviction of aggravated battery (great weight) and committed during the course of an enumerated felony (great weight)—no statutory mitigators, and nine nonstatutory mitigators, each given slight weight); Hess v. State, 794 So. 2d 1249, 1266 (Fla. 2001) (reducing to life where court found two aggravators—prior violent felony and committed during a robbery—no statutory mitigators, and sixteen nonstatutory mitigators); Johnson, 720 So. 2d at 238 (finding death a disproportionate penalty in light of two aggravators—committed during a burglary/for pecuniary gain (merged) and prior violent felony—statutory mitigator of age (22), and six nonstatutory mitigators); Farinas v. State, 569 So. 2d 425, 427-28 (Fla. 1990) (reducing to life sentence where court found two aggravators—committed during a kidnapping and murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel—and in mitigation, found extreme mental or
Here, the trial court found two aggravators: prior violent felony based on the contemporaneous conviction for aggravated assault for pointing a gun at Sergeant Mumford while attempting to flee the scene (moderate weight) and that the victim was a law enforcement officer (great weight). Although the prior violent felony aggravator is considered a weighty one, that aggravator does not carry as much weight here where it is based on an act that did not result in an injury, was committed contemporaneous to the murder, and is “qualitatively [less] compelling” than in cases where the defendant has a significant history of prior violent crimes or where the prior felony is murder or attempted murder. See, e.g., Scott, 66 So. 3d at 936; Johnson, 720 So. 2d at 238; see also Hess, 794 So. 2d at 1266 (finding that the prior violent felony aggravator in that case was “not as ‘weighty’ as it normally would be in cases where the defendant has a significant history of prior violent crimes, which includes prior murders“). We do not highlight these facts to minimize the aggravated assault, but to “place this ‘prior violent felony’ aggravator in context of the proportionality of the death sentence and to evaluate the circumstances qualitatively.” Scott, 66 So. 3d at 935.
The trial court also found three statutory mitigators—no significant prior criminal history (considerable weight), that the murder was committed while under
CONCLUSION
We do not downplay the fact that Corporal Roberts lost his life as a result of Delgado‘s actions; however, for the reasons expressed above, we are compelled to reduce Delgado‘s sentence to life imprisonment because death is not a
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
LEWIS, J., concurs in result.
CANADY, J., concurs with an opinion, in which POLSTON, J., concurs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.
CANADY, J., concurring.
I agree with the conclusion that the death sentence imposed on Delgado cannot withstand scrutiny under this Court‘s comparative proportionality jurisprudence. In Yacob v. State, 136 So. 3d 539, 557-63 (Fla. 2014) (Canady, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I expressed the view that the exercise of proportionality review by this Court is inconsistent with the conformity clause of
POLSTON, J., concurs.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Steven L. Bolotin, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Carol Marie Dittmar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee